I don't think it is Islamophobia. It is, at its core, phobia of anything not their particular style of Christiainity. I suspect that they would ban Judaism, paganism, Hindus, Buddhism, etc, if they really thought they could get away with it. I am sure some woud ban either Catholicism or protestant churches if they could too, depending on their particular denomination and church. Islam just happens to be the one that is popular to denigrate at this point in time.

I find it discouraging to see how sheeplike most Americans seem to be. We ignore real problems with major impact (probably because dealing with them might cost some giant corporation or billionaire some money) and worry about pissant stuff after being led around by the noses by talking heads who have no compunction about either flat out lying or shading the truth to the point of unrecognizability.

Come on Reteach;

Catholics and Protestants have banned each other for centuries. Within my lifetime, it was still illegal to not be a Catholic in Spain.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9

>>>>>>> It does not take long. Couple of hours to get the basics. Anyway if you are voting on Sharia, you should know what you are voting for or voting against. It is common sense.

Actually no, it is not necessary to study Sharia law to know you do not want to allow it to be enforced. Based on that logic, I must study child pornography to know to vote against it. Some things are simply self evident. Opposing allowing Muslim law to influence US law needs no in depth thought.

If it ONLY says Muslims will be treated the "Same", there would not have been any need to pass a NEW law against it!!

Does it say Muslims will be treated differently? If so ,please show where. Muslims are now treated equally, but sharia law asks for special treatment for Muslims. Hence the NEW law forbidding such special treatment.

No matter how you cut it, the law says Muslims get treated the same under the law as anyone else. Yet some people whine about this.

Actually no, it is not necessary to study Sharia law to know you do not want to allow it to be enforced. Based on that logic, I must study child pornography to know to vote against it. Some things are simply self evident. Opposing allowing Muslim law to influence US law needs no in depth thought.

Study? Perhaps not but it helps to have at least some idea what it entails. Enough to know that "Sharia law" is a redundancy, for example. Child porn is an explicit harm, allowing two parties to use a set of laws both agree to does not. Also, American law has been influenced by all kinds of things. The Found3ers took lots of influences from a lot of different areas when they crafted the Constitution.

Does it say Muslims will be treated differently? If so ,please show where. Muslims are now treated equally, but sharia law asks for special treatment for Muslims. Hence the NEW law forbidding such special treatment.

Surely that would depend on what is at dispute. If two parties agree to use Sharia in a civil dispute, I don't see the problem. Credit card agreements frequently say that they are to be judged according to the laws of a particular state, this seems little different.

No matter how you cut it, the law says Muslims get treated the same under the law as anyone else. Yet some people whine about this.

Or we could be "whining" because it's a waste of time and money to legislate a non-existent problem.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to. Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree. So I think discrimination is the wrong word here. Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues. There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations.

Two things. First, to assume that any Muslim woman agreeing to abide by sharia law did so voluntarily and of her own free will would be naive in the extreme,and shows that those who think this have not studied the Muslim culture as well as they expect other to in order to oppose sharia law.

Second, it also discriminates against non Muslim men by setting up an unequal judicial system whereby Muslim men are the favored custody parent while non Muslim men are not and their wives are.

And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly. I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone.

Again,you need to do some research. Muslims HAVE petitioned for this right,and the ACLU considers it religious discrimination to deny them this right. Hence,the actions by states such as Kansas to short circuit appealing to religious and cultural laws from foreign cultures in American courts.

Or we could be "whining" because it's a waste of time and money to legislate a non-existent problem.

First, how Kansas politicians spend their time is of concern only to their constituents, which do not include people from New York, California, or England. If their constituents are unhappy with this, then they will let them know. It is not any concern of non Kansasans (?) how their state politicians spend their time, yet this seems to be the biggest complaint. Probably because it is the only thing there really is to complain about.

Second, if the problem of Muslims wanting special treatment is nonexistent,then the issue is moot.No one will be affected by a law that deals with a problem that doesn't exist. I'm betting issues come up though, and give proof to the reason for such a law.

Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to. Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree. So I think discrimination is the wrong word here. Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues. There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations.

Two things. First, to assume that any Muslim woman agreeing to abide by sharia law did so voluntarily and of her own free will would be naive in the extreme,and shows that those who think this have not studied the Muslim culture as well as they expect other to in order to oppose sharia law.

Second, it also discriminates against non Muslim men by setting up an unequal judicial system whereby Muslim men are the favored custody parent while non Muslim men are not and their wives are.

And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly. I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone.

Again,you need to do some research. Muslims HAVE petitioned for this right,and the ACLU considers it religious discrimination to deny them this right. Hence,the actions by states such as Kansas to short circuit appealing to religious and cultural laws from foreign cultures in American courts.

OK, I stand corrected. Evidentaly there is the right of people to drive with out a picture ID. Possibly origionally concieved for Amish or other small sects. In this care the state of FL does not allow it for religious freedom purposes but does allow it in other circumstances. So they had the idea that the woman was disallowed just becuase it was a muslim reason.

Obviously, I am against this idea and feel a face should be visible and recognizable in a photo ID -m at the very least.

However, this is a seperate issue and not really something for the sharia courts.

like the two parties might agree to whatever a pastor suggests or a child therapist.

As a side note, abused women often deny the beating and excuse the abuser. Stating that both parties agree to religious law is often not the real truth. Which is why we have secular courts and rulings based secular law.

Browbeaten by the time a divorce is being drawn up women are often quite loud about any abuse real or imagined they might have endured. Men too. But it is irrelevant in any case.

People when getting divorced come up with all kinds of different arrangements, it is very individualized. Often a judges feelings or biases come into play also. It is just like how people often want to get married under the rules of a religion, right? Often a couple having a religious wedding will also agree together on aspects of their marriage that is more in line with their religion. In this case the couple is agreeing to get divorced based on the guidelines of their religion. I wonder about the necessity of sharia because at the end of the day if a divorcing couple comes before the judge and says " here we have the details all worked out, according to the guidlines of our clergyman and the needs of our children and what we see as fair property division" The judge is going to say OK- you both agree give me my rubber stamp.

I am thinking a sharia court is a place where they will hash out these details. Probably without sharia court there has been something akin to Sharia mediation for a very long time in the US.

Erey, I'm not disagreeing with the idea of "religious" influence on divorce and what's best for the child. I'm simply stating that if, for example, religious law states father gets custody of child, the mother may not agree, but could be too afraid, etc to provide recourse. Secular law looks at what is "best" for the child and although the families religious beliefs influence the decision, the court's decision will be for the child and not what any religion dictates.

I was told by muslim women that they get to keep their children until the age of 7 and then the father's rights take over. Also, a father can remarry and not effect the child custody but if the mother remarries she gives up rights to the children. Frankly, I even if I came from a long line of muslim women I would never elect a sharia ruling in these kinds of cases. It sounds like a shit sandwich for the divorced woman.

However, I think if you were to talk to a sharia scholar they would tell you they rule in the best interests of the child. So if the dad is a nerdowell and unreliable they would want to rule in favor of the mother. I am not speaking with any authority on this. But that the tendancy is to give priority to the father. Just like the tendancy here is to give priority to the mother.

At the end of the day a woman regarless of her religion has to be willing to stand up for herself and for her children. I think most muslim women will do this. Any woman can be too cowed to speak up for herself in a court of law regardless of religion. But most do.

Again, I am not sure why your typicall muslim women would seek out a sharia decision on her divorce- I am thinking it is not very popular here in the US and they would rather go secular for that. However, I am sure in cases of marriage they are probably fine with sharia.

Regardless of how you or I might feel about it or how crazy it might sound it is not our place to prevent or impeed people from pursuing the civil contracts of their choice.

I don't think it is Islamophobia. It is, at its core, phobia of anything not their particular style of Christiainity. I suspect that they would ban Judaism, paganism, Hindus, Buddhism, etc, if they really thought they could get away with it. I am sure some woud ban either Catholicism or protestant churches if they could too, depending on their particular denomination and church. Islam just happens to be the one that is popular to denigrate at this point in time.

I find it discouraging to see how sheeplike most Americans seem to be. We ignore real problems with major impact (probably because dealing with them might cost some giant corporation or billionaire some money) and worry about pissant stuff after being led around by the noses by talking heads who have no compunction about either flat out lying or shading the truth to the point of unrecognizability.

Yeah, "Islamophobia" may not be quite the right word. It's more like "Islam -o- Hatred"

Well Christzen in regards to cases of child custody there is no "discrimination" since both parties agree to adhere to sharia - just becasue they are muslim does not mean they have to. Just becasue one spouse wants to get a sharia ruling does not mean the other has to agree. So I think discrimination is the wrong word here. Because families often divide child custody based on a variety of issues. There is a typical child custody arrangement but often there are deviations.

Two things. First, to assume that any Muslim woman agreeing to abide by sharia law did so voluntarily and of her own free will would be naive in the extreme,and shows that those who think this have not studied the Muslim culture as well as they expect other to in order to oppose sharia law.

Second, it also discriminates against non Muslim men by setting up an unequal judicial system whereby Muslim men are the favored custody parent while non Muslim men are not and their wives are.

And having your face covered in a DL is against our laws and therefore never going to fly. I understand there are cases of women petitioning the courts for the right to have their face covered in a DL but those cases don't go anywhere because we dont do that here and I don't see us doing that here because it goes against the whole purpose of photo identification and the ability to identify someone.

Again,you need to do some research. Muslims HAVE petitioned for this right,and the ACLU considers it religious discrimination to deny them this right. Hence,the actions by states such as Kansas to short circuit appealing to religious and cultural laws from foreign cultures in American courts.

Citation for the bolditalicized please

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

>>>>>>> It does not take long. Couple of hours to get the basics. Anyway if you are voting on Sharia, you should know what you are voting for or voting against. It is common sense.

Actually no, it is not necessary to study Sharia law to know you do not want to allow it to be enforced. Based on that logic, I must study child pornography to know to vote against it. Some things are simply self evident. Opposing allowing Muslim law to influence US law needs no in depth thought.

>>>>>>> I think you misunderstood. To say "Yes" or "No" to ANYTHING, you should know what it is!!

In the case of child pornography, you HAVE To know what it is. You need not to "Study" it or watch it for an year to know what it is. BUT a lawmaker has to know the definition, limits of any subject they want to support or reject.

Lawmakers get paid for this research and public service.

If I am your congressman and I need to vote on additional schools in the district. I have to study the budget sitution, school situation, tax situation etc.

Same with Sharia. As a common person, you can learn about it (Don't have to practice it or endorse it). It will make your opinions more credible. :-)

If it ONLY says Muslims will be treated the "Same", there would not have been any need to pass a NEW law against it!!

Does it say Muslims will be treated differently? If so ,please show where. Muslims are now treated equally, but sharia law asks for special treatment for Muslims. Hence the NEW law forbidding such special treatment.

No matter how you cut it, the law says Muslims get treated the same under the law as anyone else. Yet some people whine about this.

>>>>>>> Still not clear, if this ain't nothin, why so many people have to vote AGAINST it?